Russian Air Campaign in Syria

[Steve Pace]

The Russians are bombing Syria - interesting - any details on this out there? -SP

 

[Gridlock]

http://spioenkop.blogspot.co.uk

 

[Mr London 24/7]

What are there to use bombs?

Barrel bombs...

 

[Triton]

"U.S. rebukes first Russian airstrike in Syria"

Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/09/30/russian-parliament-troops-abroad/73072884/

 

[Avimimus]

Well, maybe we'll know what is going on in maybe four years once its become less political. With the difficulty getting information on the ground most newspaper sources and even expert analysts seem to be going on minimal information and taking positions based largely on their overall political reading of the situation.

 

[Archibald]

Good grief, the region is more and more a powder keg
http://www.defconwarningsystem.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=21028

 

[Reaper]

So U.S., UK, France is bombing ISIS.
Turkey is bombing the Kurds.
and now Russia joins in to bomb the FSA.
Great!

 

[JFC Fuller]

Everyone is getting bombed except Assad, which is unfortunate as he has killed considerably more Syrians than anyone else.

 

[Reaper]

@archibald I also wonder if this story is really true that Israelis would run away from a fight. They have much more combat experience than their Russian counterparts!

 

[lastdingo]

@archibald I also wonder if this story is really true that Israelis would run away from a fight. They have much more combat experience than their Russian counterparts!

Not a single today active Israeli fighter pilot has scored an air combat kill yet, so what combat experience do you talk about. Turkey-shooting Hamas and Hezbollah opposition that's got nothing better than VShorAD? Their last campaign with substantial air combat activity was 33 years ago!

Russia has likely sent a couple experienced pilots to Syria, who may have combat experience from the South Ossetia conflict or mercenary activities (Eritrea etc.), so they may have more air combat experience than all active IAF pilots combined.

Besides; a F-15 wreck found in Syria would be very, very bad press. And any cool-minded pilot will not risk his life without being ordered to do so.

 

[Reaper]

Ok about the air/air kills in the last ten years you might be right, maybe some Iranian drones in 2006. But otherwise:
IAF air strikes and operations in
2009 Lebanon
2007 Syrian nuclear reactor
2008/2009 attacking Hamas
2009/2011/2012 Sudan
2012 Gaza
2013/2014/2015 Syria

While the Russians have fought a few days in Ossetia and maybe send a few pilots somewhere elsewhere.
I believe the IAF is one of best airfoce worldwide, just because they have so much experience fighting in different conflicts.

 

[lastdingo]

They're badly overrated based on successes 30-50 years ago in wars. Ever since they did nothing but bully-bomb near-defenceless and defenceless targets. That's no better experience than training on target ranges.

I recommend van Creveld's "The sword and the olive" to get an impression of the IDF's qualitative decline after the Yom Kippur War.

 

[Void]

The RuAF performed terribly over Georgia. Losing several aircraft and failing to either suppress Georgia's tiny air force (had no fighters!) which was still operating on the last day of the war; or suppress its mostly Soviet made SAMs, which were eventually overrun mostly intact by the Russian Army.

The biggest lesson from the South Ossetian war was that the RuAF was struggling to succeed at basic air combat missions in a fairly permissive environment.

 

[Sferrin]

They're badly overrated based on successes 30-50 years ago in wars. Ever since they did nothing but bully-bomb near-defenceless and defenceless targets. That's no better experience than training on target ranges.

The same would have been said of the US in the 80s. After all they "lost" the Vietnam war. Then Desert Storm came along. . . Hmm. . .maybe training matters, no?

 

[bobbymike]

Ever since they did nothing but bully-bomb near-defenceless and defenceless targets.

You mean bombing terrorist launch sites where rockets were fired indiscriminately at Israeli civilian targets?

 

[JFC Fuller]

I could never recommend anything written by Creveld.

 

[Triton]

"Russian Warships in Eastern Mediterranean to Protect Russian Strike Fighters in Syria"
By: Sam LaGrone
October 5, 2015 11:48 AM

http://news.usni.org/2015/10/05/russian-warships-in-eastern-mediterranean-to-protect-russian-strike-fighters-in-syria#more-15044

 

[Triton]

"How Iranian general plotted out Syrian assault in Moscow"
By Laila Bassam and Tom Perry

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-general-plotted-syrian-assault-moscow-172251295.html

 

[Sferrin]

"How Iranian general plotted out Syrian assault in Moscow"
By Laila Bassam and Tom Perry

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-general-plotted-syrian-assault-moscow-172251295.html

Yeah, looks more and more like Russia's involvement is more about propping up Assad than fighting terrorism.

 

[Triton]

Last Thursday, President Putin conscripted 150,000 into the Russian military.

 

[Sferrin]

Last Thursday, President Putin conscripted 150,000 into the Russian military.

Russia has always had conscription.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia

 

[stealthflanker]

Interactive maps on Russian airstrike. Looks reliable and updated so far.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=z4PF1SFiMPjQ.kFa_qMMdFl48

Well Russians bomb Both "moderate" rebels and ISIS. Though yes.. the moderate got "bigger dose" of bombs.

 

[lastdingo]

"How Iranian general plotted out Syrian assault in Moscow"
By Laila Bassam and Tom Perry

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-general-plotted-syrian-assault-moscow-172251295.html

Yeah, looks more and more like Russia's involvement is more about propping up Assad than fighting terrorism.

"terrorism" is a highly questionable word in the context of a fully hot civil war anyway. You're not going to find a single militia or other civil war faction there that didn't terrorise.
The difference between them is mostly gradual, and the difference that's important to us is whether Western mainstream likes the faction or not. Nowadays we don't like D'aesh, Al-Nusra or Assad regime in the West, but that doesn't mean no other group is worse in regard to atrocities/size ratio.

 

[Sferrin]

"How Iranian general plotted out Syrian assault in Moscow"
By Laila Bassam and Tom Perry

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-general-plotted-syrian-assault-moscow-172251295.html

Yeah, looks more and more like Russia's involvement is more about propping up Assad than fighting terrorism.

"terrorism" is a highly questionable word in the context of a fully hot civil war anyway. You're not going to find a single militia or other civil war faction there that didn't terrorise.
The difference between them is mostly gradual, and the difference that's important to us is whether Western mainstream likes the faction or not. Nowadays we don't like D'aesh, Al-Nusra or Assad regime in the West, but that doesn't mean no other group is worse in regard to atrocities/size ratio.

Pretty sure ISIS is the bad apple of the bunch. :

 

[lastdingo]

... and you do so because you're a Westerner.

As a Russian, you would rather be aware of what you can find when you google 'FSA atrocities'.


It's a civil war. There are no 'good guy' factions in civil wars. EVERY party in a lengthly civil war ever has committed horrible crimes and terrorised people. That's the nature of (civil) war.

 

[Sferrin]

... and you do so because you're a Westerner.

Not sure if you're a troll or just anti-Western. The way you appear to be sticking up for ISIS, a bunch who delights in indiscriminant beheadings and violence in general, I'd say the former. (And that's being charitable. Maybe you're just a sick individual.)

 

[kaiserd]

... and you do so because you're a Westerner.

As a Russian, you would rather be aware of what you can find when you google 'FSA atrocities'.


It's a civil war. There are no 'good guy' factions in civil wars. EVERY party in a lengthly civil war ever has committed horrible crimes and terrorised people. That's the nature of (civil) war.

By that logic you agree that Assad's forces have committed horrible crimes and terrorised their own people?

Russia's ongoing support hence makes them complicit in these crimes, don't you agree, per your own logic?

 

[PlanesPictures]

And support of ISIL is what?

 

[Sferrin]

And support of ISIL is what?

Which countries are supporting ISIS?

 

[lastdingo]

... and you do so because you're a Westerner.

As a Russian, you would rather be aware of what you can find when you google 'FSA atrocities'.


It's a civil war. There are no 'good guy' factions in civil wars. EVERY party in a lengthly civil war ever has committed horrible crimes and terrorised people. That's the nature of (civil) war.

By that logic you agree that Assad's forces have committed horrible crimes and terrorised their own people?

Russia's ongoing support hence makes them complicit in these crimes, don't you agree, per your own logic?

You seem to assume I'm liking Putin or his policies.
As a blogger, I've paid attention to deterrence and defence in Europe (=against Russia) in preference over stupid wars of occupation for years. (In fact, I did so just yesterday again.)

I just think it's naive to assume or imply that one or two factions of this civil war could be singled out as 'terrorists'. All those factions are first and foremost warring parties in a civil war, and no doubt all of them committed crimes and terrorised people already. There is no good guy faction one could side with.
Russia adds more fuel to the fire in a way that may yield disastrous results for Western foreign policy (and the behaviour of dictators world-wide) well beyond Syria itself: http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2015/10/russians-showing-off-in-syria.html

 

[kaiserd]

... and you do so because you're a Westerner.

As a Russian, you would rather be aware of what you can find when you google 'FSA atrocities'.


It's a civil war. There are no 'good guy' factions in civil wars. EVERY party in a lengthly civil war ever has committed horrible crimes and terrorised people. That's the nature of (civil) war.

By that logic you agree that Assad's forces have committed horrible crimes and terrorised their own people?

Russia's ongoing support hence makes them complicit in these crimes, don't you agree, per your own logic?

You seem to assume I'm liking Putin or his policies.
As a blogger, I've paid attention to deterrence and defence in Europe (=against Russia) in preference over stupid wars of aggression for years. (In fact, I did so just yesterday again.)

I just think it's naive to assume or imply that one or two factions of this civil war could be singled out as 'terrorists'. All those factions are first and foremost warring parties in a civil war, and no doubt all of them committed crimes and terrorised people already. There is no good guy faction one could side with.
Russia adds more fuel to the fire in a way that may yield disastrous results for Western foreign policy (and the behaviour of dictators world-wide) well beyond Syria itself: http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2015/10/russians-showing-off-in-syria.html

I agree against staying away from simple "goodies" versus "baddies" analysis.
However I would note the a curious disassociation in your comments.

Russian actions may equally yield disastrous consequences for Russian foreign policy; Syria could very easily turn into better analogy for a Russian Vietnam than Afganistan ever was - a choice between humiliating failure or ever deeper involvement, including Russian ground troops.

The use of "Western foreign policy" as a blanket term while ignoring the various players (mainly non-western by any normal definition) own policy aims and roles re: Syria does suggest that you subscribe to a view of the world that may be closer to various conspiracy-theory tinged views held by incumbent regimes in the Kremlin, in Tehran etc.
As you said above its not as simple as that

 

[lastdingo]

I suppose Western foreign policy (excluding Turkey and Israel obviously) prefers the victory of the FSA rather sooner than later. The Western countries are rather unified in this, so I think it's appropriate to shorten texts by writing "Western foreign policy" or "the West" in texts about the Syrian Civil War.

Russia may fail to help Assad win, true. A Russian success could be very, very bad in the long term (save for possibly saving further potential Syrians from dying in an even longer war).

A year or so some politicians were contemplating to establish a no-fly zone against Assad without the UNSC, based on allegations of chemical weapons (munitions) usage as an excuse. This topic only went away because of a cool public reaction and the Syria's air force running out of non-improvised munitions anyway.
In the future, dictators with an uprising problem will know that they only need to be friends with the Kremlin to be safe against such a meddling; Russia may send some fighters that do the air policing, willing to confront even U.S. fighters. This is new, and Russia can "achieve" much more in Syria that might make dictators elsewhere more aggressive and brazen.

 

[Avimimus]

Okay, lets get a few facts clear and see if we can agree upon them:

- The current 'Assad' Syrian Regime is Shi'ite, and closely allied with the Shi'ite minority in Syria. However, most of Syria's population is Sunni.

- There is currently a power struggle in the middle east between Sunni and Shi'ite states (primarily between the Saudis and Iran).

- The United States and Britain organised a coup against Mosaddeq in Iran and propping up of the Shah eventually created conditions for the Iranian revolution. The rebels initially allied with the Soviet Union as a result of our backing the Shah. As a result, NATO foreign policy during the Cold War aimed at the overthrow of the Iranian regime and its allies in Syria. The goal of over throwing these regimes remained even after the fall of the Soviet Union and encouraged an alliance between NATO and Sunni Islam (Similarly, the Russians maintained some ties to the Assad regime in Syria after the fall of communism).

- Over the last few decades there has been a growing wave of Sunni religious fundamentalism, with a particularly strong influence by Salafists in Saudi Arabia. While the Iranian regime isn't perfect, Saudi elites are linked to the 9/11 attacks and Saudi Arabia has some of the most fundamentalist attitudes (regarding women's clothing etc.) This makes the NATO-Sunni alliance an uneasy one.

- What we refer to as 'moderates' in the West are primarily Saudi backed Sunni fundamentalists. ISIL/ISIS represents a more extreme form of Sunni fundamentalism, also receiving active financial support from more extreme fundamentalist factions in Sunni states.

- It is unclear that the Shi'ite Alawis and Ismailis will not be persecuted if the Assad regime falls to the 'moderates' (even though the persecution is likely to be more graphic under ISIL).

Does anyone disagree with any of the above points?

 

[lastdingo]

Assad and a substantial share of his top lieutenants are Alevites, not Shi'ites. It is a religious minority regime just as the Bahraini one, though.

Revolutionary Iran wasn't very close with the USSR. They didn't get terribly much equipment from the USSR for the Gulf War, for example. The U.S. hostility rather originated in the embassy hostage crisis.

Saudi-Arabian Salafism is usually called "Wahhabism" and supposedly is a bit different.

 

[Triton]

What a mess...


Who is fighting whom in Syria? BBC News

Published on Oct 7, 2015

There has been an intense wave of Russian air strikes in two areas of Syria, activists say. Moscow says it is targeting jihadist groups like Islamic State in co-ordination with Syria's government.
But Nato is worried some of the attacks are hitting rebel groups opposed to President Bashar al-Assad - some of whom are backed by the West.
So just who is fighting whom in Syria?
Mohamed Madi explains.

https://youtu.be/sNw2e0IAk0c

 

[TomS]

The rebels initially allied with the Soviet Union as a result of our backing the Shah. As a result, NATO foreign policy during the Cold War aimed at the overthrow of the Iranian regime and its allies in Syria.

I'll agree with lastdingo -- Iran was never closely allied with the USSR after the revolution. Before the revolution, Marxist parties like the Tudeh and People's Mojahedin were Soviet-leaning and played a significant role in the guerrilla campaigns, but the leftists were forced out quickly as the Islamists consolidated power (1979-1982). For most of the Iran-Iraq War, the Soviets were actively pro-Iraq and anti-Iran. China was a much closer partner to Iran in this period than the USSR was.


US policy against Iran after 1979 was almost entirely driven by the embassy crisis and Iran's support of revolutionary efforts elsewhere in the region.

 

[Triton]

"Russia Steps Up Role in Syria as Assad Begins a Ground Attack"
by ANNE BARNARD and ANDREW E. KRAMER OCT. 7, 2015

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/middleeast/russia-syria-conflict.html?_r=0

 

[Sferrin]

US, Turkey: Most Russian Strikes Do Not Target 'IS,' al Qaeda in Syria

The US and Turkey have said that Russian strikes in Syria have mainly targeted moderate rebel groups, not "Islamic State" fighters. Meanwhile, the Syrian regime launched its first ground offensive with Russian help.


The US State Department says Russia, apart from wanting to prop up Bashar al-Assad's regime, lacked a clear strategy in Syria, "and greater than 90 percent of the strikes that we've seen them take to date have not been against ISIL or al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists," spokesman John Kirby said in a press briefing on Wednesday, using an alternate acronym for the self-styled "Islamic State" or "IS."

"They've been largely against opposition groups that want a better future for Syria and don't want to see the Assad regime stay in power."

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/167642/most-russian-strikes-not-targeting-is-or-al-qaeda.html

 

[Gridlock]

"How Iranian general plotted out Syrian assault in Moscow"
By Laila Bassam and Tom Perry

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-general-plotted-syrian-assault-moscow-172251295.html

Yeah, looks more and more like Russia's involvement is more about propping up Assad than fighting terrorism.

I know you'd struggle to be aware of this from watching US news, but Assad invited Russian forces in. He is the recognised sovereign leader. No matter what your personal opinion it remains a fact that the Russian action is demonstrably legal under international law. The argument for NATO's action is... less clear.


It's not like the Russians just turned up, either, lest we forget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus

 

[Sferrin]

"How Iranian general plotted out Syrian assault in Moscow"
By Laila Bassam and Tom Perry

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-general-plotted-syrian-assault-moscow-172251295.html

Yeah, looks more and more like Russia's involvement is more about propping up Assad than fighting terrorism.

I know you'd struggle to be aware of this from watching US news, but Assad invited Russian forces in. He is the recognised sovereign leader. No matter what your personal opinion it remains a fact that the Russian action is demonstrably legal under international law. The argument for NATO's action is... less clear.

Wow, defensive much? Did I say Russia wasn't invited? Did I say Assad wasn't the Syrian leader? Did I say the action was illegal? None of that changes the fact that Russia is there more to prop up Assad than to fight ISIS.